> that is a culmination of over 500 years of struggle. Against whom? The Afghans? The Mughals? The Sikh Empire? The British? Republic of India? > people have

> that is a culmination of over 500 years of struggle. Against whom? The Afghans? The Mughals? The Sikh Empire? The British? Republic of India? > people have just one demand. secession. This is never going to happen: 'The Partition and the violence of 1947 in Kashmir forced the Constituent Assembly to revise its approach and it resolved in favour of a strong Centre. The possibility of the secession of States from the Union weighed on the minds of the drafters of the Constitution and ensured that the Indian Union is “indestructible”. In the Constituent Assembly, B.R Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, observed that the word ‘Union’ was advisedly used in order to negative the right of secession of States by emphasising, after all, that “India shall be a Union of States”. Ambedkar justified the usage of ‘Union of States’ saying that the Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, it was not the result of an agreement and that therefore, no State has the right to secede from it. “The federation is a Union because it is indestructible,” Ambedkar said.'[1] [1] The ‘Union government’ has a unifying effect (https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-union-government-has-a-unifying-effect/article34938894.ece https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-union-government-...)